Topic: Intervention

LINCOLN L. YAO vs. HON. PERELLO

G.R. No. 153828
24 October 2003

CORONA, J.

FACTS

Petitioner filed a complaint against a certain corporation, PR Builders, Inc. and its managers
Baluyot and Villarin, in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). On September 17,
1999, the HLURB rendered a decision rescinding the contract to sell between petitioner and PR
Builders, and ordering PR Builders to refund petitioner the amount of P2,116,103.31, as well as to
pay damages in the amount of P250,000. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a writ of execution against
PR Builders and its managers.

The Sheriff levied a parcel of land in Calamba, Laguna, registered in the names of spouses Pablito
Villarin and private respondent, Bernadine Villarin. The property was scheduled for public auction
on 20 March 2002. Private respondent alleged that she co-owned the property subject of the
execution sale, that the property regime between private respondent and her husband was
complete separation of property, and that she was not a party in the HLURB case, hence, the subject
property could not be levied on to answer for the separate liability of her husband.

The case was eventually raffled to Branch 276 of the RTC, presided by public respondent judge.
Public respondent judge issued the assailed resolution of March 22, 2002 granting private
respondents petition for prohibition and declaring the subject property exempt from execution.
Hence, the scheduled auction sale did not materialize. On 25 April 2002, or more than a month after
public respondent judge issued the resolution, petitioner filed a motion for intervention. However,
public respondent judge denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s motion for intervention was correctly denied for being belatedly filed

RULING

Yes. Petition is DISMISSED. Nothing in the provision requires the inclusion of a private party as
respondent in petitions for prohibition. On the other hand, to allow intervention, it must be shown
that (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified, and (b)
consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may
be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenors rights may be protected in a separate
proceeding or not. Both requirements must concur as the first is not more important than the
second. In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioner’s right as a judgment creditor was
adversely affected by the lifting of the levy on the subject real property. Records reveal that there
are other pieces of property exclusively owned by the defendants in the HLURB case that can be
levied upon.